You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?

It's rather academic, since if you can't see the runway at 300 feet, you're
unlikely to climb to 500, see it, and then be in a position to descend down
for a normal landing. But to answer your question, no it's not legal
according to 14 CFR 91.175(e)(1)(i) since you'd be operating below the MDA
for the LOC approach.

Section 91.175: Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(e) Missed approach procedures. Each pilot operating an aircraft, except a
military aircraft of the United States, shall immediately execute an
appropriate missed approach procedure when either of the following
conditions exist:

(1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) or (l) of this
section and the requirements of that paragraph are not met at either of the
following times:

(i) When the aircraft is being operated below MDA; or






"Yossarian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
> You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
> approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?
>

"Yossarian" > wrote:
> You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
> You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
> approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?

I don't know of any rule which explicitly says it is illegal, but my
personal opinion is that it's a stupid idea.

It's a stupid idea in the general sense because the middle of an approach
is no time to be changing plans and diagnosing instrument failures. Go
around, sort things out at a safe altitude, and figure out a new plan when
you have time to consider all your options.

It's a particularly stupid idea in the specific scenario you described. If
you're still IMC at 300 feet, what makes you think climbing to 500 will put
you in a position where you can see the runway?

Consider also how inaccurate timing is. In a typical GA airplane, 100 feet
above DH on the GS is about 10 seconds away from the ILS MAP; what makes
you think your FAF-MAP timing is accurate to within 10 seconds?

Plus, another thing. Transition from descent to climb profile involves
power changes, pitch changes, and trim changes. And all those again as you
level off at 500. Are you going to be doing all those things, and peering
out of the window at the same time trying to see the runway (all the while
paying attention to your timer counting down the last few seconds)? And
then more power/pitch/trim changes (plus get the gear up this time) a few
seconds later as you finally decide to go missed? Low, slow, and IMC is
the wrong place to be doing all these things.

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
> You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
> approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?

Legality-wise, the only offence someone could really try to prosecute you
for would be that of breaking the approach constraints of the equipment
available to you. Your defence (which I'm 100% sure the court would accept)
would be that the approach was legal until the equipment broke and
immediately switched you to a situation which was (strictly speaking)
illegal, but which you expeditiously got yourself out of by climbing to the
new MDA. Theory notwithstanding, though, the sensible way to go is execute a
missed approach, go back to the start, get the other approach plate out,
remind yourself of the minima, and have another go.

As others have said, I suspect this example is hypothetical - if you're at
300' on the glideslope of an ILS, you're a mile from touchdown and you'll
probably be over the runway by the time you've realised what's going on and
have climbed. It's not inconceivable, however, for something similar to
happen when (say) an airfield has published ILS (precision) and NDB
(non-precision) approaches, where the difference in DH is only a hundred
feet - you could in theory embark on the ILS approach, the glideslope could
fail at 350 feet, and you're still within the legal limits of an NDB
approach. Again, though, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a sensible way
to go.

D.

Is it safe or prudent given your level of skill? That is the question.

Yossarian wrote:
> You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
> You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
> approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?
>

IMHO, there are far too many CFII's teaching students to transition
from an ILS approach to a LOC approach midstream, if the glideslope
fails.

Human beings are very habit oriented. Things are much more consistent
if we do things the same way every time. (Watch a professional golfer
getting ready for a drive a few times, and you'll see that they do it
the same way every time.)

The prudent (in my opinion) action, when the glideslope fails inside
the FAF, is to go missed and then get your head around the LOC
approach, regardless of where you are on the Final Approach segment.

If you have yet to reach the FAF, brief the LOC approach if you have
time. Otherwise, ask to hold at the FAF (if available) or take another
action that will give you the time.

Just my two cents.

-Rob

----
Rob Montgomery
www.scarylittleairplanes.org

Don't try to convert an ILS into a LOC in midstream. Go around and try again
(this assumes that radar is not available).

Bob Gardner


"Yossarian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
> You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
> approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?
>

On 6 Sep 2005 19:29:14 -0700, "Yossarian" >
wrote:

>You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
>You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
>approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?

That's how I was taught. You time the ILS approach, even though it's
not necessary, in case the GS fails and you can climb to the MDA and
continue as a LOC approach. I've read several articles advising that.
I was even told that not timing the ILS approach was a failure item on
the checkride, so I did as I was taught and timed the approach. I
guess it's good practice against the possibility of forgetting to time
the approach when it really does matter.

My GS is included in one radio, the Narco NAV122. The LOC and GS share
some components so if a common component fails, the whole thing is
suspect. In fact, the one time the radio did fail it was the
multiplexer that quit, though the failure was discovered on the ground
and not on approach.

I suspect that other installations may also share components in
unexpected ways, particularly antennas. If something fails, you don't
need to be puzzling about whether you can trust what's left while
you're 300' and barrelling down the glideslope. A miss allows you to
evaluate your condition from a safe altitude.

Unless your tanks are empty and you have seconds to get it on the
ground before the power fails. But then that's a whole different
scenario.

RK Henry

David Cartwright wrote:
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
>>You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
>>approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?
>
>
> Legality-wise, the only offence someone could really try to prosecute you
> for would be that of breaking the approach constraints of the equipment
> available to you. Your defence (which I'm 100% sure the court would accept)
> would be that the approach was legal until the equipment broke and
> immediately switched you to a situation which was (strictly speaking)
> illegal, but which you expeditiously got yourself out of by climbing to the
> new MDA. Theory notwithstanding, though, the sensible way to go is execute a
> missed approach, go back to the start, get the other approach plate out,
> remind yourself of the minima, and have another go.

Not exactly. There is always the catch all "reckless" operation
violation. All it takes is an FAA guy to find out about this and
consider it reckless.


Matt

RK Henry > wrote

> I was even told that not timing the ILS approach was a failure item on
> the checkride, so I did as I was taught and timed the approach.

You received incorrect information.

> A miss allows you to evaluate your condition from a safe altitude.

A procedure required in the airline industry.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
>>You are on an ILS approach, DH 200'. The localizer-only MDA is 500'.
>>You are at 300' in IMC when the GS fails. Assuming you are timing the
>>approach, is it legal to climb to 500 and continue the approach?
>
> That's how I was taught. You time the ILS approach, even though it's
> not necessary, in case the GS fails and you can climb to the MDA and
> continue as a LOC approach. I've read several articles advising that.
> I was even told that not timing the ILS approach was a failure item on
> the checkride, so I did as I was taught and timed the approach. I
> guess it's good practice against the possibility of forgetting to time
> the approach when it really does matter.

For my IMC rating (UK-only "baby brother" of an IR) the instructor didn't
insist on timing the ILS approach, but did point out that if you've got
other aids (ADF, DME) there's no harm in having them tuned in as a
cross-reference.

D.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:56:22 +0100, Peter > wrote:

>
> Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>>Consider also how inaccurate timing is. In a typical GA airplane, 100 feet
>>above DH on the GS is about 10 seconds away from the ILS MAP; what makes
>>you think your FAF-MAP timing is accurate to within 10 seconds?
>
>This is interesting. I've been taught (FAA IR) to always time the
>approach, even an ILS.
>
>I am not sure what the point is, except in the case of a loss of GS,
>on a no-DME approach.
>
>Airline pilots I've spoken to never time anything when going down an
>ILS. If they lose GS, they will go up right away.

There is no requirement to time an ILS approach in the FAA IR-PTS
(Practical Test Standards). For what it's worth, I was taught that timing
of an ILS was optional.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:32:14 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:56:22 +0100, Peter > wrote:
>
>>
>> Roy Smith > wrote:
>>
>>>Consider also how inaccurate timing is. In a typical GA airplane, 100 feet
>>>above DH on the GS is about 10 seconds away from the ILS MAP; what makes
>>>you think your FAF-MAP timing is accurate to within 10 seconds?
>>
>>This is interesting. I've been taught (FAA IR) to always time the
>>approach, even an ILS.
>>
>>I am not sure what the point is, except in the case of a loss of GS,
>>on a no-DME approach.
>>
>>Airline pilots I've spoken to never time anything when going down an
>>ILS. If they lose GS, they will go up right away.
>
>There is no requirement to time an ILS approach in the FAA IR-PTS
>(Practical Test Standards). For what it's worth, I was taught that timing
>of an ILS was optional.

I was taught to time an ILS because there are places like BED (ILS 11
or 29) where without a GPS you can't ID the missed approach point if
the glideslope fails without timing the approach.

Peter Clark wrote:

> I was taught to time an ILS because there are places like BED (ILS 11
> or 29) where without a GPS you can't ID the missed approach point if
> the glideslope fails without timing the approach.

I can't believe people still discuss this issue. Firstly, timing an
approach takes a fraction of a second - simply push a button. Secondly, if
you time every approach it becomes part of your checklist, your routine etc.
Thirdly, as you point out, what the heck do you do (can you do) if you're in
IMC on an ILS and your GS fails? You're screwed and only luck will save
your butt (it may be less dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain).

So, Peter, I agree with you 100% - time every approach.

Hilton

Hilton > wrote:

> I can't believe people still discuss this issue. Firstly, timing an
> approach takes a fraction of a second - simply push a button. Secondly, if
> you time every approach it becomes part of your checklist, your routine etc.
> Thirdly, as you point out, what the heck do you do (can you do) if you're in
> IMC on an ILS and your GS fails? You're screwed and only luck will save
> your butt (it may be less dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain).

Well, I won't disagree with you about doing the timing. Its cheap, its
easy, and it couldn't hurt.

However, if I'm on the ILS and my only GS fails, I'm going missed RIGHT
NOW. I don't care wether I have a timer or not.

Yes, of course, if I'm down to my last pint of fuel, I'm rather forced to
continue and the timer would be very useful. However, if thats the case,
I've made a whole batch of mistakes.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Frank,

> Hilton wrote:
>
> > I can't believe people still discuss this issue. Firstly, timing an
> > approach takes a fraction of a second - simply push a button. Secondly,
if
> > you time every approach it becomes part of your checklist, your routine
etc.
> > Thirdly, as you point out, what the heck do you do (can you do) if
you're in
> > IMC on an ILS and your GS fails? You're screwed and only luck will save
> > your butt (it may be less dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain).
>
> Well, I won't disagree with you about doing the timing. Its cheap, its
> easy, and it couldn't hurt.
>
> However, if I'm on the ILS and my only GS fails, I'm going missed RIGHT
> NOW. I don't care wether I have a timer or not.

The problem is that you have no missed approach procedure to follow. Let's
say, for example, that the missed is a 180 degree turn back to the LOM. If
you start your turn early (i.e. fly the missed right now), you may hit a
mountain.

i.e. you must have a way to determine (at least approximately) where the MAP
is; for examples are GS, DME, VOR, timing... You have to fly to the MAP to
be safe on the missed. Of course, you can and should climb if your GS dies.

Hilton

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:47:24 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>
>I was taught to time an ILS because there are places like BED (ILS 11
>or 29) where without a GPS you can't ID the missed approach point if
>the glideslope fails without timing the approach.

I would never try to talk someone out of timing an ILS. However, I do not
find it necessary.

Yours not good examples of a need to time in order to decide when to start
executing a missed approach.

You could (and should) start your climb immediately. On the ILS 29 the
climb to the holding fix is straight ahead; so ID'ing the MAP is
irrelevant.

On the ILS 11 there is a slight turn of 5° at most, which is not going to
cause a problem. But if you are really, really concerned, and don't have a
GPS, you likely have DME and a marker beacon receiver, so you could ID the
MAP with the former, and/or start your 5° turn at the latter (perhaps after
the tone fades out).

It is of more concern where the missed approach segment is a turning
course. However, the next time you fly an ILS, watch the localizer needle
as you get close to the runway. You will find it pretty simple to note the
increased sensitivity of the needle and/or the flipping of the needle back
and forth as you pass over the station. Depending on which end of the
runway the LOC transmitter is located; and the missed approach segment;
either of these can be used to decide where/when to start your turn.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:26:17 GMT, "Hilton" > wrote:

>what the heck do you do (can you do) if you're in
>IMC on an ILS and your GS fails? You're screwed and only luck will save
>your butt

You can't be serious with that claim.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Thirdly, as you point out, what the heck do you do (can you do) if you're
> in
> IMC on an ILS and your GS fails?
>

You fly the missed approach procedure.


>
> You're screwed and only luck will save
> your butt (it may be less dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain).
>

Nonsense.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> >
> > Thirdly, as you point out, what the heck do you do (can you do) if
you're
> > in
> > IMC on an ILS and your GS fails?
> >
>
> You fly the missed approach procedure.

Steven, when would you start your turn back to the LOM (or in any other
direction)?

The missed approach starts from the MAP (DH) - since you cannot ensure you
are at the MAP, you never really know you're flying the published missed -
therefore all bets are off so to speak.

The missed approach only provides protection if you fly it correctly and as
published (obviously).

Hilton


Hilton

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> The problem is that you have no missed approach procedure to follow.
>

Show me an ILS without a missed approach procedure.


>
> Let's
> say, for example, that the missed is a 180 degree turn back to the LOM.
> If
> you start your turn early (i.e. fly the missed right now), you may hit a
> mountain.
>
> i.e. you must have a way to determine (at least approximately) where the
> MAP
> is; for examples are GS, DME, VOR, timing...
>

Easily done. A standard 3 degree GS descends 318' per nautical mile,
altitude above DH is directly proportional to distance from the MAP. To
make the arithmetic simpler 300' per mile is a close enough approximation.

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Steven, when would you start your turn back to the LOM (or in any other
> direction)?
>

At the point specified in the procedure.


>
> The missed approach starts from the MAP (DH) - since you cannot ensure you
> are at the MAP, you never really know you're flying the published missed -
> therefore all bets are off so to speak.
>

What makes you think I cannot ensure I'm at the MAP?

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> Hilton wrote:
> >what the heck do you do (can you do) if you're in
> >IMC on an ILS and your GS fails? You're screwed and only luck will save
> >your butt
>
> You can't be serious with that claim.

Firstly, please note that after the word "butt", I had "(it may be less
dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain)." So, we're assuming
mountainous terrain or other nearby obstacles.

When would you start flying the missed?
How would you start flying the missed?
Are you guaranteed to be flying the missed approach as published?

Hilton

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Firstly, please note that after the word "butt", I had "(it may be less
> dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain)." So, we're assuming
> mountainous terrain or other nearby obstacles.
>
> When would you start flying the missed?
>

At the point specified in the procedure.


>
> How would you start flying the missed?
>

In the manner specified in the procedure.


>
> Are you guaranteed to be flying the missed approach as published?
>

Yes.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> >
> > Steven, when would you start your turn back to the LOM (or in any other
> > direction)?
> >
>
> At the point specified in the procedure.

[Obvious replies inserted] And that is? How would you identify it?


> > The missed approach starts from the MAP (DH) - since you cannot ensure
you
> > are at the MAP, you never really know you're flying the published
missed -
> > therefore all bets are off so to speak.
> >
>
> What makes you think I cannot ensure I'm at the MAP?

[Obvious replies inserted] And that is? How would you identify it?

And FWIW, please note that earlier in this thread I wrote: "i.e. you must
have a way to determine (at least approximately) where the MAP is; for
examples are GS, DME, VOR, timing..."

Hilton

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> >
> > Firstly, please note that after the word "butt", I had "(it may be less
> > dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain)." So, we're assuming
> > mountainous terrain or other nearby obstacles.
> >
> > When would you start flying the missed?
> >
>
> At the point specified in the procedure.

You work for Microsoft? ;) [in reference to the "in an airplane!" joke]

Hilton

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> [Obvious replies inserted] And that is? How would you identify it?
>

Since I'm on the GS when my GS receiver fails my distance from the MAP is
directly proportional to my altitude above DH. A 3 degree GS drops 318' in
each nautical mile. If I'm about 1000' above DH I'm about 3 miles from the
MAP. Simple.

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> You work for Microsoft?
>

Nope. Do you hold an instrument rating?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Hilton" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>[Obvious replies inserted] And that is? How would you identify it?
>>
>
>
> Since I'm on the GS when my GS receiver fails my distance from the MAP is
> directly proportional to my altitude above DH. A 3 degree GS drops 318' in
> each nautical mile. If I'm about 1000' above DH I'm about 3 miles from the
> MAP. Simple.
>
>
So, you're reverting to timing anyway. The only difference is you start
your timing at a point other than the non-precision FAF and try to
figure it out as you go. (Let's see, I was passing 2650 when I lost the
glideslope a few seconds ago, the DH is 852, the glideslope is 2.8
degrees, I drop XXX amount of feet from here to there at a rate of XXX
ft per mile, so I'll cover that distance in XX minutes/seconds). Sounds
like it would be a whole lot simpler to start the timing at the
non-precision FAF than try to do those computations on the fly as you're
starting to climb as you're trying to figure if it's your equipment or
the glideslope failure.

John

Peter wrote:
> "David Cartwright" > wrote:
>
> The ILS timing thing is an odd one. It seems to me that it's done only
> in the checkride :) It is hugely inaccurate.
>

It is highly inaccurate, yet it's a step above guesswork. The biggest
problem would be caused when a 90 degree turn is required at the MAP.
That turn only protects from obstacles if you start the turn at or after
the MAP (as specified by the procedure). If you start the turn prior to
the MAP, you don't get the obstacle protection afforded by the missed
approach procedure.

John

"JPH" > wrote in message
news:016Ue.2559$P34.221@okepread07...
>
> So, you're reverting to timing anyway. The only difference is you start
> your timing at a point other than the non-precision FAF and try to figure
> it out as you go. (Let's see, I was passing 2650 when I lost the
> glideslope a few seconds ago, the DH is 852, the glideslope is 2.8
> degrees, I drop XXX amount of feet from here to there at a rate of XXX ft
> per mile, so I'll cover that distance in XX minutes/seconds). Sounds like
> it would be a whole lot simpler to start the timing at the non-precision
> FAF than try to do those computations on the fly as you're starting to
> climb as you're trying to figure if it's your equipment or the glideslope
> failure.
>

I didn't say timing was wrong. I just responded to what Hilton wrote:

"Thirdly, as you point out, what the heck do you do (can you do) if you're
in
IMC on an ILS and your GS fails? You're screwed and only luck will save
your butt (it may be less dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain)."

That just ain't so. You aren't screwed if you didn't punch the clock at the
FAF. There is another way determine (at least approximately) where the MAP
is.

Steven,
>
> Hilton wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that you have no missed approach procedure to follow.
>
> Show me an ILS without a missed approach procedure.

If you're gonna quote me out of context, then we're wasting our time here.
To thoroughly beat this dead horse, my point was that if you start your turn
before the MAP, you have no missed approach procedure to follow that will
guarantee you 'safety' since the missed approach procedure starts at the
MAP.


> > Let's
> > say, for example, that the missed is a 180 degree turn back to the LOM.
> > If
> > you start your turn early (i.e. fly the missed right now), you may hit a
> > mountain.
> >
> > i.e. you must have a way to determine (at least approximately) where the
> > MAP
> > is; for examples are GS, DME, VOR, timing...
> >
>
> Easily done. A standard 3 degree GS descends 318' per nautical mile,
> altitude above DH is directly proportional to distance from the MAP. To
> make the arithmetic simpler 300' per mile is a close enough approximation.

And if it is not standard? So they have to do this divide by 300 math and
then figure out the time from their airspeed? Well, you're welcome to teach
your students (if you're a CFI-I) to suddenly do this math real-time in IMC
on an ILS during a good-ol' pucker moment. I will teach my students to push
one little button in exactly the same place every time on every instrument
approach.

Hilton

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> >
> > You work for Microsoft?
> >
>
> Nope. Do you hold an instrument rating?

I really dislike these ****ing contests on the NGs because I think that
everyone's input is perfect valid and should be seriously considered whether
they are a student pilot or a high-time 747 Captain.

But if you're bored enough, Hilton in San Jose, CA will get my details on
landings.com

Hilton

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> DME is really important, IMHO, if flying a NP approach using the
> autopilot; one sets the MDA as the target altitude on the AP, the VS
> to appropriate value for the ground speed, and counts off the DME
> miles, checking the altimeter at each point against the approach
> plate.

Yes, I agree that DME is essential for NP approaches - though you need to
understand where the sources of radio waves actually are in relation to each
other (the thing you're measuring DME from may, of course be some miles from
the thing your ADF is pointing at). At my local airfield, things are looking
good if you're heading in from the east and the ADF needle swings around
when the DME says 3.2nm.

What would be nice on NP approaches, of course, is technology you can rely
on. When I went out for a "pretend" test before my IMC exam, I was asked to
do an NDB approach into an unfamiliar airfield. By some miracle, everything
happened just as it should, and I soon found myself at the right altitude,
with the needle pointing forward and starting to twitch as if we were
approaching the NDB's overhead.

The instructor turned to me, and pointed out at a grassy mound in our
three-o'clock (we had screens in so I couldn't see forward and cheat). "You
know," he said, "if they hadn't hidden the NDB behind that pile of muck, the
ADF might stand a better chance of pointing at it".

D.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:14:48 GMT, "Hilton" > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> Hilton wrote:
>> >what the heck do you do (can you do) if you're in
>> >IMC on an ILS and your GS fails? You're screwed and only luck will save
>> >your butt
>>
>> You can't be serious with that claim.
>
>Firstly, please note that after the word "butt", I had "(it may be less
>dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain)." So, we're assuming
>mountainous terrain or other nearby obstacles.
>
>When would you start flying the missed?

I would start climbing immediately and turn when close to the MAP

>How would you start flying the missed?

See above

>Are you guaranteed to be flying the missed approach as published?

Yes

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

You can go miss anywhere on the approach, not just the MAP. If you get a
false glideslope (not a totally uncommon occurence and the reason they
glideslope intercept altitude is published), then you have to go missed, or
possible downgrade to the localizer. The correct procedure is to climb and
continue the course until you can determine by any means you can that you
are at the MAP and then turn. In the mean time, call ATC.

Paul
"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Steven,
>>
>> Hilton wrote:
>> >
>> > The problem is that you have no missed approach procedure to follow.
>>
>> Show me an ILS without a missed approach procedure.
>
> If you're gonna quote me out of context, then we're wasting our time here.
> To thoroughly beat this dead horse, my point was that if you start your
> turn
> before the MAP, you have no missed approach procedure to follow that will
> guarantee you 'safety' since the missed approach procedure starts at the
> MAP.
>
>
>> > Let's
>> > say, for example, that the missed is a 180 degree turn back to the LOM.
>> > If
>> > you start your turn early (i.e. fly the missed right now), you may hit
>> > a
>> > mountain.
>> >
>> > i.e. you must have a way to determine (at least approximately) where
>> > the
>> > MAP
>> > is; for examples are GS, DME, VOR, timing...
>> >
>>
>> Easily done. A standard 3 degree GS descends 318' per nautical mile,
>> altitude above DH is directly proportional to distance from the MAP. To
>> make the arithmetic simpler 300' per mile is a close enough
>> approximation.
>
> And if it is not standard? So they have to do this divide by 300 math and
> then figure out the time from their airspeed? Well, you're welcome to
> teach
> your students (if you're a CFI-I) to suddenly do this math real-time in
> IMC
> on an ILS during a good-ol' pucker moment. I will teach my students to
> push
> one little button in exactly the same place every time on every instrument
> approach.
>
> Hilton
>
>

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 06:07:00 GMT, "Hilton" > wrote:

>If you're gonna quote me out of context, then we're wasting our time here.
>To thoroughly beat this dead horse, my point was that if you start your turn
>before the MAP, you have no missed approach procedure to follow that will
>guarantee you 'safety' since the missed approach procedure starts at the
>MAP.

What you write about an early turn is true. However, nobody who advocates
not timing from the FAF is advocating turning prior to the missed approach
point!

What you don't seem to understand is that there are a number of ways to
determine a MAP in addition to timing from the FAF. And that timing is
probably the least accurate of all of them.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> If you're gonna quote me out of context, then we're wasting our time here.
>

Nobody quoted you out of context.


>
> To thoroughly beat this dead horse, my point was that if you start your
> turn before the MAP, you have no missed approach procedure to follow that
> will
> guarantee you 'safety' since the missed approach procedure starts at the
> MAP.
>

Nobody suggested starting the turn before the MAP.


>
> And if it is not standard?
>

Multiplying the GS angle in degrees by 100 provides a close approximation of
the altitude loss in feet for each mile. It's not exact, but the difference
is less than 6%.


>
> So they have to do this divide by 300 math and then figure out the time
> from
> their airspeed?
>

It's just simple arithmetic. Many common pilot tasks call for doing simple
arithmetic.


>
> Well, you're welcome to
> teach your students (if you're a CFI-I) to suddenly do this math real-time
> in
> IMC on an ILS during a good-ol' pucker moment. I will teach my students
> to
> push one little button in exactly the same place every time on every
> instrument
> approach.
>

Nobody said timing an ILS was wrong. What we're trying to help you
understand is you're not screwed and must rely on luck to save your butt if
you're in IMC on an ILS and your GS fails and you didn't punch the timer at
the FAF. That there is a way to determine (at least approximately) where
the MAP is without DME or GPS or VOR. Do you understand that now?

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I really dislike these ****ing contests on the NGs because I think that
> everyone's input is perfect valid and should be seriously considered
> whether they are a student pilot or a high-time 747 Captain.
>

I seriously considered your input, it took just a few nanoseconds for me to
determine it was not valid. You asserted there's no way to ensure you are
at the MAP without timing from the FAF. That's simply not correct.


>
> But if you're bored enough, Hilton in San Jose, CA will get my details on
> landings.com
>

I asked only because you don't seem to have a good knowledge of ILS.

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you referring to looking on a GPS?
>

Nope.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> I seriously considered your input, it took just a few nanoseconds for
> me to determine it was not valid. You asserted there's no way to
> ensure you are at the MAP without timing from the FAF. That's simply
> not correct.

Well Steven, why don't you just come right out and tell them
about the Middle Marker?

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
>>I seriously considered your input, it took just a few nanoseconds for
>>me to determine it was not valid. You asserted there's no way to
>>ensure you are at the MAP without timing from the FAF. That's simply
>>not correct.
>
>
> Well Steven, why don't you just come right out and tell them
> about the Middle Marker?
>
> Bob Moore
Most MMs have been decommissioned.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> >
> > [Obvious replies inserted] And that is? How would you identify it?
> >
>
> Since I'm on the GS when my GS receiver fails my distance from the MAP is
> directly proportional to my altitude above DH. A 3 degree GS drops 318'
in
> each nautical mile. If I'm about 1000' above DH I'm about 3 miles from
the
> MAP. Simple.

OK, since we're never going to agree on this, please help me out here. I'm
a CFI-I. If I were to have a lesson with a student who is pretty much ready
for his IR checkride tomorrow morning, please write out the math that he/she
would need to do in IMC on the ILS when his/her glideslope failed. I would
need to convince this student that doing this math in IMC (while doing all
the other stuff) is easy/safer/better than starting the timer.

Let's assume that the GS fails at 2700' (MSL), the DH is at 357' (MSL), a 3
degree glideslope, an 'ILS' airspeed of 100 knots, a climb airspeed of 80
knots. For simplicity, let's assume no wind conditions.

Thanks.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:
> OK, since we're never going to agree on this, please help me out
here. I'm
> a CFI-I. If I were to have a lesson with a student who is pretty much ready
> for his IR checkride tomorrow morning, please write out the math that he/she
> would need to do in IMC on the ILS when his/her glideslope failed. I would
> need to convince this student that doing this math in IMC (while doing all
> the other stuff) is easy/safer/better than starting the timer.
>
> Let's assume that the GS fails at 2700' (MSL), the DH is at 357' (MSL), a 3
> degree glideslope, an 'ILS' airspeed of 100 knots, a climb airspeed of 80
> knots. For simplicity, let's assume no wind conditions.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Hilton
>
>
I don't think I'd want to teach students that when your original idea of
starting the timing at the FAF is much better. At least with the
numbers you used in the example, you'd still be on the other side of the
non-precision FAF at most airports, since you're over 7 miles out at
2700'. They try to keep FAFs within 6 miles so they don't have to add an
"excessive length of final" penalty to the LOC MDA.
What would be bad is if after successfully making the calculations, the
student realized that they forgot to start the timer when they went
missed approach, so now they have to add the guesswork of how far they
flew between MA initiation and completing the calculations.

John

John,
> Hilton wrote:
> > OK, since we're never going to agree on this, please help me out
> here. I'm
> > a CFI-I. If I were to have a lesson with a student who is pretty much
ready
> > for his IR checkride tomorrow morning, please write out the math that
he/she
> > would need to do in IMC on the ILS when his/her glideslope failed. I
would
> > need to convince this student that doing this math in IMC (while doing
all
> > the other stuff) is easy/safer/better than starting the timer.
> >
> > Let's assume that the GS fails at 2700' (MSL), the DH is at 357' (MSL),
a 3
> > degree glideslope, an 'ILS' airspeed of 100 knots, a climb airspeed of
80
> > knots. For simplicity, let's assume no wind conditions.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Hilton
> >
> >
> I don't think I'd want to teach students that when your original idea of
> starting the timing at the FAF is much better.

Yeah, me neither. I just want to see what Steven thinks all instrument
rated pilots are capable of while doing other important things when going
missed such as applying full power, adjusting RPM, raising the gear, opening
the cowl flaps, reading a checklist, GPS/VOR changes, talking to ATC, and
all the other things that come with a missed approach. (FYI: these tasks
and others are all aircraft-dependant, so adjust accordingly). I *really*
don't want to be doing any math at that point and betting the only quarter
I'm playing with that I will get it correct 100% of the time. Push the
button!


> At least with the
> numbers you used in the example, you'd still be on the other side of the
> non-precision FAF at most airports, since you're over 7 miles out at
> 2700'. They try to keep FAFs within 6 miles so they don't have to add an
> "excessive length of final" penalty to the LOC MDA.
> What would be bad is if after successfully making the calculations, the
> student realized that they forgot to start the timer when they went
> missed approach, so now they have to add the guesswork of how far they
> flew between MA initiation and completing the calculations.

Agreed. BTW: The worst case I've seen of a long ILS is the ACV ILS 32 -
there probably are longer ones, but this one has you descending from 5200'
down to 418' (MSL).

Hilton

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 122...
>
>>Well Steven, why don't you just come right out and tell them
>>about the Middle Marker?
>>
>
>
> Because they're disappearing.


There should be a co-located (and associated) DME if
there are no markers, and in can be used instead of the markers.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Yeah, me neither. I just want to see what Steven thinks all instrument
> rated pilots are capable of while doing other important things when going
> missed such as applying full power, adjusting RPM, raising the gear,
> opening the cowl flaps, reading a checklist, GPS/VOR changes, talking to
> ATC, and
> all the other things that come with a missed approach. (FYI: these tasks
> and others are all aircraft-dependant, so adjust accordingly). I *really*
> don't want to be doing any math at that point and betting the only quarter
> I'm playing with that I will get it correct 100% of the time. Push the
> button!
>

If you're so overwhelmed by IFR flight don't fly IFR.

"Tauno Voipio" > wrote in message
...
>
> There should be a co-located (and associated) DME if
> there are no markers, and in can be used instead of the markers.
>

Only if you're equipped with DME or GPS.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Tauno Voipio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>There should be a co-located (and associated) DME if
>>there are no markers, and in can be used instead of the markers.
>>
>
>
> Only if you're equipped with DME or GPS.

At least here (Finland), an airplane needs a DME
(among other avionics) to be IFR airworthy.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

"Tauno Voipio" > wrote in message
...
>
> At least here (Finland), an airplane needs a DME
> (among other avionics) to be IFR airworthy.
>

Not here in the US.

Tauno Voipio wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>> . 122...
>>
>>> Well Steven, why don't you just come right out and tell them
>>> about the Middle Marker?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Because they're disappearing.
>
>
>
> There should be a co-located (and associated) DME if
> there are no markers, and in can be used instead of the markers.
>
In the USA, the MM used to be a required part of the ILS system. Now,
nothing is required to replace the MM (not even DME), so most have been
removed.

John

JPH wrote:
> Tauno Voipio wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
>>> . 122...
>>>
>>>> Well Steven, why don't you just come right out and tell them
>>>> about the Middle Marker?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because they're disappearing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There should be a co-located (and associated) DME if
>> there are no markers, and in can be used instead of the markers.
>>
> In the USA, the MM used to be a required part of the ILS system. Now,
> nothing is required to replace the MM (not even DME), so most have been
> removed.


It's a weird interpretation of the ICAO rules, but that would
not be the first time FAA does not respect the internationally
accepted rules.

I'll check from the relevant ICAO docs as soon as I get to
the office.

AFAIK, there should be at least either operative outer
and middle marker or a co-located DME. The markers are
positioned so that outer marker is roughly at the crossing
of the intermediate approach altitude and glideslope
(the point where glide starts) and middle marker at
the crossing of glideslope and MDA.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hilton wrote:
> > I'm a CFI-I.
>
> I find that rather hard to believe.

Steven, I really enjoy reading your posts. I think you bring a lot of
knowledge to these NGs. It's a real pity that you have to resort to insults
to try make a point.

[zap]
> > Let's assume that the GS fails at 2700' (MSL), the DH is at 357' (MSL),
a
> > 3 degree glideslope, an 'ILS' airspeed of 100 knots, a climb airspeed of
> > 80
> > knots. For simplicity, let's assume no wind conditions.
> >
>
> Simple. I'm 2300' above DH when the GS fails (I'm rounding off to the
> nearest hundred), 2300 divided by 300 is 8 miles (Inside the FAF and still
8
> miles from the MAP? Where is this approach?)

Try ACV ILS 32 - it starts you at 5200 - I made it easy for you. :)


> 8 miles at 80 knots will take
> 6 minutes. Now let's use the actual numbers to see how accurate that is.
> 2700' less 357' is 2343' above DH, 2343' at 318' per mile makes it 7.4
miles
> from the MAP, 7.4 miles at 80 knots takes 5.6 minutes. In your no wind
> condition I'd have overshot the MAP by 3600', I'm probably over the
runway.

OK, so you suggest teaching IFR pilots that *while they are doing important
stuff* that I mentioned before (power, gear, cowl flaps etc), they have to
do this math in their heads:

(2700-357) / 300 * 60 / 80 = 6 minutes.

And getting back to my original comment, no, I don't think that every IFR
pilot is able to make these calculations correct 100% of the time - hence
the comment about luck. I certainly wouldn't guarantee myself that I could
get these calculations correct 100% of the time during the 'missed'
high-workload portion of the flight. I know and understand my limitations
(there Steven, huge opportunity for another snide remark :)), and I'm
willing to do anything that will reduce my workload and that of my students
in IMC during a high-risk part of the flight.

Hilton

Tauno Voipio wrote:

>>> There should be a co-located (and associated) DME if
>>> there are no markers, and in can be used instead of the markers.
>>>
>> In the USA, the MM used to be a required part of the ILS system. Now,
>> nothing is required to replace the MM (not even DME), so most have
>> been removed.
>
>
>
> It's a weird interpretation of the ICAO rules, but that would
> not be the first time FAA does not respect the internationally
> accepted rules.
>
> I'll check from the relevant ICAO docs as soon as I get to
> the office.
>
> AFAIK, there should be at least either operative outer
> and middle marker or a co-located DME. The markers are
> positioned so that outer marker is roughly at the crossing
> of the intermediate approach altitude and glideslope
> (the point where glide starts) and middle marker at
> the crossing of glideslope and MDA.
>

When DME is used as a substitute for the Outer Marker (OM) in the USA,
it doesn't even have to be co-located. As long as the DME source is
within 6 degrees of the final course, it can be used as a replacement
for the OM (Even more if the FAA provides a waiver).
For the military, they only require that the DME be within 23 degrees of
the final course. Many airports use VORTACs or VOR/DME facilities to
provide the DME for an ILS localizer FAF. The FAA's policy is that if
DME is available, it will be used to provide a localizer FAF at the same
point as the glideslope intercept point (called a PFAF), and the OM or
LOM will no longer be used if the DME is available (most do not allow a
common PFAF, because they are not perfectly placed at the point where an
even 100' altitude increment and the glideslope are overhead. In other
words, the glideslope altitude at the OM might be 2367, but the PFAF
will be placed at either the 2400 or 2300 point, and DME will be used
instead of the OM.
The downside is that there are a lot more approaches getting the title
"ILS or LOC/DME" instead of "ILS or LOC" because of this, requiring DME
in order to fly the localizer procedure.
The FAA policy is if the DME is out of service, the ILS (precision) can
still be flown, because the glideslope intercept defines where the final
approach begins, and DH defines where missed approach begins.
This is part of the reason for this current discussion; many procedures
have no way of marking the LOC missed approach point in the USA other
than the time-distance table, because no MM or DME is available.

John

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:38:20 GMT, Tauno Voipio
> wrote:

>AFAIK, there should be at least either operative outer
>and middle marker or a co-located DME. The markers are
>positioned so that outer marker is roughly at the crossing
>of the intermediate approach altitude and glideslope
>(the point where glide starts) and middle marker at
>the crossing of glideslope and MDA.

Even if there is, I thought that we are talking about the case where
you don't have a MM, the GPS is broken, you aren't carrying DME (since
US regs allow GPS substitution for DME, with a few exceptions) and you
just lost your glideslope somewhere on the approach, and how you could
then identify the MAP.

"Tauno Voipio" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's a weird interpretation of the ICAO rules, but that would
> not be the first time FAA does not respect the internationally
> accepted rules.
>

Just like many other nations.

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even if there is, I thought that we are talking about the case where
> you don't have a MM, the GPS is broken, you aren't carrying DME (since
> US regs allow GPS substitution for DME, with a few exceptions) and you
> just lost your glideslope somewhere on the approach, and how you could
> then identify the MAP.
>

Me too.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:50:46 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:38:20 GMT, Tauno Voipio
> wrote:
>
>>AFAIK, there should be at least either operative outer
>>and middle marker or a co-located DME. The markers are
>>positioned so that outer marker is roughly at the crossing
>>of the intermediate approach altitude and glideslope
>>(the point where glide starts) and middle marker at
>>the crossing of glideslope and MDA.
>
>Even if there is, I thought that we are talking about the case where
>you don't have a MM, the GPS is broken, you aren't carrying DME (since
>US regs allow GPS substitution for DME, with a few exceptions) and you
>just lost your glideslope somewhere on the approach, and how you could
>then identify the MAP.

In the examples you gave at BED, there would be no need to ID the MAP prior
to executing the missed approach.

For those where it is necessary, other methods have been mentioned in this
thread.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Hilton wrote:

>
>
> Firstly, please note that after the word "butt", I had "(it may be less
> dramatic when surrounded by flatter terrain)." So, we're assuming
> mountainous terrain or other nearby obstacles.
>
> When would you start flying the missed?
> How would you start flying the missed?
> Are you guaranteed to be flying the missed approach as published?
>
You start climbing when the G/S fails. That is flying the missed even
though you have not reached the MAP (DA point with ILS)

If the missed approach track is straight ahead you are home free.
If the missed approach is a track reversal back to the LOM or a VOR
behind you, you are also home free because all the airspace is protected
from the P-FAF to the DA point (plus 1.5 miles after that) on the turn side.

If the turn is less than a 180 (or thereabouts) then the simple math
Stephen suggests will get you well within protected missed approach
airspace.

And, who knows, you might be at a location where ATC can help you with
radar. ;-)

This is the 21st Century, so anybody who doesn't have GPS to preempt
these types of "1950s" problems probably needs to find another, safer
hobby. ;-)

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Steven, I really enjoy reading your posts. I think you bring a lot of
> knowledge to these NGs. It's a real pity that you have to resort to
> insults to try make a point.
>

I don't resort to insults, I use facts and logic to make my points. I truly
do find it hard to believe that someone with your knowledge of ILS could be
a CFI-I.


>
> Try ACV ILS 32 - it starts you at 5200 - I made it easy for you. :)
>

That's very interesting. Let me make sure I understand your position.
You're saying that if the GS fails when I'm in IMC at 2700 MSL on the ACV
ILS RWY 32 approach I'm screwed and only luck will save my butt if I haven't
started the timer. Is that correct? Do you really teach your students to
begin timing an ILS at the precision approach FAF? Most pilots start the
clock at the nonprecision approach FAF, that's the one used in the timing
table. But at 2700 MSL on the glideslope the nonprecision approach FAF,
ACATA, is still three miles ahead. I don't have to do any arithmetic at all
to determine my distance from the MAP, I can just start the clock when I
reach ACATA. But I don't even have to do that, I can identify the MAP with
DME or ADF or marker beacon.

By the way, DH on that approach is 418 MSL, not 357.


>
> OK, so you suggest teaching IFR pilots that *while they are doing
> important stuff* that I mentioned before (power, gear, cowl flaps etc),
> they have to
> do this math in their heads:
>
> (2700-357) / 300 * 60 / 80 = 6 minutes.
>

You still don't get it. This isn't an argument about timing vs. not-timing
an ILS. You claimed you're screwed if you don't time an ILS and the GS
fails, we're just trying to show you that that's not the case. Do you now
understand why your position was incorrect?


>
> And getting back to my original comment, no, I don't think that every IFR
> pilot is able to make these calculations correct 100% of the time - hence
> the comment about luck. I certainly wouldn't guarantee myself that I
> could get these calculations correct 100% of the time during the 'missed'
> high-workload portion of the flight. I know and understand my limitations
> (there Steven, huge opportunity for another snide remark :)), and I'm
> willing to do anything that will reduce my workload and that of my
> students in IMC during a high-risk part of the flight.
>

But you think any IFR pilot can determine the distance from the MAP to the
precision approach FAF and correctly compute the time required to cover it
00% of the time. Apparently arithmetic is only a problem when it's used to
prove you wrong.

Here in the US the main use of a DME is to get the CG a little further
forward.

Jim


>
> At least here (Finland), an airplane needs a DME
> (among other avionics) to be IFR airworthy.

"RST Engineering" > wrote in news:11itmqcnjdv981
@corp.supernews.com:

> Here in the US the main use of a DME is to get the CG a little further
> forward.
>
The CG of my S-35 Bonanza (the potential for aft CG problems is a well-
known characteristic of this series) was actually improved -- moved forward
-- when the DME was removed. It was a King 700 series, with the heavy RT
unit located behind the aft luggage compartment bulkhead. Every ounce of
weight that can be moved forward in this airplane results in a little more
flexibility in loading.